Supporters of civil unions rally at the Capitol on May 14, the first day of the special session.

A new poll released today shows that three out of four Coloradans support some sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

More Coloradans support allowing gays to marry than allowing them to form civil unions, a sort of marriage lite, although the Colorado constitution stipulates marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The poll was conducted May 21 through 24, just days after the Republican-controlled House of Representatives killed two civil union bills in high-profile maneuvers that garnered national attention.

The poll was conducted by Keating Research for the liberal group Project New America. A Republican pollster said today that Keating Research’s numbers can be considered solid.

Ethan Axelrod, communications director for Project New America, said the poll shows what most people already know about Colorado:

“Thee are groups of social conservatives, but for the most part Coloradans are moderate on the issues,” he said. “I think that’s the case now more than ever. There’s strong support for gay rights.”

“I find these numbers very hard to believe,” he said. “Most of the people I talk to don’t see a difference between civil unions and gay marriage, and the vast majority do not support either.”

The pollster asked “Which one of the following statements do you agree with?”

Gay and lesbian couples should have the same legal right to marry as do a man and woman. 42 percent

There should be no legal recognition of a relationship between gay and lesbian couples. 22 percent

Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to form a civil union, which gives the same legal rights as marriage, but it should not be called marriage. (Supporters of civil unions says it does not give the same rights as marriage, such as on tax issues.) 31 percent

Four percent of the respondents were undecided or didn’t know.

Keating Research contacted 601 likely voters from across the state. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percent. Of the respondents, 37 percent were Republican, 33 percent were Democrat and 30 percent were unaffiliated.

A breakdown of the poll shows that of those supporting legal recognition 82 percent are unaffiliated, and 73 percent are Hispanic. In the bellwether counties of Araphoe and Jefferson, 78 percent of voters support either gay marriage or civil unions. In addition, 57 percent of Republicans supported some sort of legal recognition.

The first bill died a stunning death on the second to last day of the session when GOP leadership refused to bring it up for debate on the House floor. At least three and as many of five Republicans said they would support the measure. The second bill was killed by a Republican-controlled House committee on the first day of a special session.

Beware of polling that shows majority support for gay marriage and or civil unions!! The latest example was North Carolina where every singly public poll understated the conservative viewpoint on the final outcome of the anti-gay marriage/civil unions amendment. The polls also found that most North Carolinians supported some sort of ‘legal recognition’ for the gays. This happens time and time again. Polls predicted Prop 8 in California would be defeated and it won. And so forth. My hunch is that a majority of Coloradoans still oppose same-sex marriage.

Did you just use North Carolina as an example as to why a poll in Colorado could be wrong? I’d almost agree with you in regards to prop 8 but that was four years ago and it was very poorly worded, not to mention all of the money given to it from Utah religious groups.

The first is the so-called “Bradley effect”, where people sometimes aren’t honest when talking to a pollster. This is named after a California election where African-American Tom Bradley ranked significantly higher in poll after poll than Armenian-American George Deukmejian for the governor’s race, but then when the ballots were counted, Bradley lost. The most common theory is that when asked in person or over the phone, some people claimed they would vote for Bradley so that they wouldn’t be perceived as racist, but in the privacy of the voting booth, they voted honestly.

The second is voter enthusiasm. It may be that, even though more people overall support equal civil rights for gays and lesbians, the people who oppose are more enthusiastic to vote on the issue. In fact, poll like these may fuel such results. People who support equality but who wouldn’t otherwise vote may be more inclined to not vote, since the polls say there’s a majority in favor and their vote wouldn’t make much of a difference, whereas people who oppose equality are determined to “prove the polls wrong” and go vote on the issue, even if they wouldn’t have otherwise voted in that election.

You have a clever username. Bravo!
I’m aware of the Bradley effect.
I hadn’t thought about your other point, that polls that show support for GLBT issues give comfort to its supporters, and give incentive to opponents to double their efforts.
Maybe supporters need to redouble our GOTV efforts.

McNulty’s abuse of process in blocking the civil unions bill from the favorable vote of the full legislature, not once but even twice, was abhorrent. Very damaging to the economy and taxpayers in addition to the harm to same-sex couples.

Yeah, real speakers know how to kill bills without “chocolate donut” debate antics.
Real speakers don’t lead people on. They’re clear about their intent.
The late Bev Bledsoe would have let it be known from day one that a bill he didn’t like was going to a “kill” committee, and not dickered around sending it to committees where he suspected there were wobbly votes.

So it appears that these three questions were asked and they came up with 3/4’s of Coloradoans support some sort of legal recognition for same sex couples. The answers add up to 42% (yes) + 22% (no) + 31% (yes) + 4% (undecided), or 99%, which is fine, assuming rounding.

Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking (it doesn’t take a statistician) should be able to discern how completely absurd this conclusion is. By asking a similar question twice in a list of questions that is non-exhaustive, then taking the sum of the responses to those two questions, you have considerable overlap and an incredibly biased “survey.” This “survey” is a highly biased joke and should not be taken seriously by anyone with an IQ over 80. No surprise that the Denver CommPost would try to pass it off as a serious piece of work.

If your premise is right, then the facts should support it. Trying to pass off something this absurd as legit makes it appear that you must resort to extensive manipulation to make your case.

A critical thinker you may be, but a comprehensive reader you are not. Question #2 is actually 78% in favor of some type of legal recognition between homosexual couples. 78% roughly translates to 3 out of 4 Colorado residents. Game, set, match. New game: It’s a horribly phrased question (perhaps intentionally) which could have skewed the results. Either way… equal rights for everyone!!!
P.S. Now, you didn’t specify your views on the subject, so I’m hopeful that you are indeed a true critical thinker; true critical thinkers are incapable of bigotry (or at the very least, they work hard to suppress any ingrained bigoted thoughts that may linger from their past.)

LOL! It appears that something is indeed itty bitty, such as, perhaps, your grasp of logic. To ask a “poll” question and then to assert the results’ converse as “proof” for your position is creative, but entirely fallacious. “Game, set, match” on someone’s planet I suppose, but not on a planet where rationality exists. Enjoy your stay.

Re: New Game – I agree with you that polling questions are often phrased in a way to skew results.

Re: Not specifying my view of the subject – That is intentional. My response was simply pointing out the absurdity of the assertion based upon the “poll”, not to mention the CommPost’s disregard for critical thinking in its never-ending quest to carry water for particular agendas. My comment/argument stands on its own and is independent of the topic of the poll. The only reason that anyone refuting the argument would need to know my position on the issue would be to question my motive and/or engage in an ad hominem attack, neither of which would be germane or productive.

The point is that people should think critically and not swallow headlines/storylines (regardless of what those stories are) that do not hold up under rational scrutiny. I would hope that we could agree agree on that.

Another comprehension problem, or perhaps a clarity problem on my part: my only position in referencing the percentage from the second poll question was that your summation of the statistics obtained was wrong, as was then your explanation of why the poll was invalid. Which is of course why I then acknowledge that it is a horribly phrased question and thus the results may not be accurate.

I’ll believe it when I see it.
People lie to pollsters all the time, then vote their real feelings at the ballot box.
That happened with Colorado’s Amendment 2, it also happened to a Virginia gubernatorial candidate, I can’t think of his name. Polls showed he would run away with the election. He barely squeaked in. He was black. Post-election follow-up interviews showed that Virginians told pollsters what the pollsters wanted to hear. The people interviewed said they didn’t want to look like rubes. Same with voters is Colorado. They told the pollsters what the pollsters wanted to hear.
There’s only one poll that counts.
When the Colorado legislature passes civil unions, or the people of Colorado repeal the marriage ban (Jesus will return first before that happens, I guarantee you), then I’ll believe it.
It is so easy to manipulate people on gay issues during elections. Save the family! Protect our children! God says no!

I have more hope that the people of Colorado will repeal the marriage ban in the near future. The tide is changing, younger folks are more accepting and each day that passes more of them become eligible to vote.

Your religious views are not a basis for determining legislation. People are beginning to wake up to the fact that certain bible thumpers think our Constitution should be burned and replace by the bible. No thank you.

What you’re describing is known as “the Bradley effect,” named after former L.A. Mayor Tom Bradley, who lost a bid for governor of California in 1982 after leading in the polls. You’re probably thinking of Douglas Wilder, who won his election in Virginia with less a margin of victory than predicted. I’ll never forget the horror I felt in watching the 1992 returns in Colorado. At first, when returns were coming in from Denver and Boulder, it appeared Amendment 2 would be defeated. When the tide turned, I was stunned, then really angry. How could Coloradans vote to strip rights of basic citizenship from family, friends, neighbors, colleagues? It was a pivotal moment – I’d thought tyrannical majorities were a peculiarity of the Jim Crow South, and Colorado had always enjoyed a reputation for fairness. It’s one reason I left the South to come here in the late 70s. The truth is that bigotry and abuse of power by majorities happens everywhere. It’s also the reason that one of the Reconstruction amendments, the 14th, ensures that such abuses are unconstitutional. Basic rights of citizenship should never be determined by a majority.

Thanks. Douglas Wilder is indeed whom I’m thinking of.
I was almost physically ill when Amendment 2 passed. I had been dreading that result for weeks. The opinion polls’ percentage of people who said they were opposed was flat for months beforehand. It didn’t budge. But the election result still hit me like a ton of bricks. I was depressed for weeks afterwards.
If you accept the standard data, 90 – 95% of the American public is not GLBT. If they vote for Amendment 2, or if they vote to ban gay or lesbian marriage, or if McNutty pulls a fast one, it doesn’t affect them personally. They can still marry. They’re still protected against discrimination. Their group doesn’t get called vile names in ad campaigns.
And, when religions can spend tens of millions of dollars on election campaigns, when pastors, rabbis, and imams can thunder from their pulpits that GLBT people are doomed deviants, when worshippers who vote for marriage or civil unions are told they will be excommunicated (yes, bishops have done that), or otherwise cut off from God, I can’t think of anything that can fight that.
And the public is so easily confused and misled about the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. No house of worship would ever be forced to acknowledge a gay or lesbian couple as married.
I don’t believe I’ll see same-sex civil unions or civil marriage in Colorado in my lifetime.

Whatever. It’s so manipulative and very un-democratic to throw a bunch of left-leaning polls up to show support for civil unions in an attempt to sway legislators, rather than just going to the voters themselves. Supporters know that support isn’t even close to this high, and that’s why they’re not going to the ballot. A poll that was naturally ignored by the Post shows that a plurality actually oppose civil unions.

I have absolutely no prejudice against people who love each other and want to share their lives together. I wish we could all love each other and just get along. I also don’t care one whit what consenting adults do for sexual pleasure behind closed doors if it causes no physical or psychological harm (well, no guarantees there lol).

However, as a society, we are supposed be making decisions about whether we want to give financial incentive for various types of associations because they are a benefit of all of us in the long run. I get the idea of doing that for men and women who want to get married and have families, or conceivably do. I don’t get that for people who are in love but cannot procreate. We don’t need to give them financial rewards any more than we should give them out to all types of other living together arrangements among people who really like and or love each other. It makes no sense.

This debate has gotten hung up on whether we are discriminating against same sex couples. I believe that is the wrong focus. This debate should be about what kinds of relationships benefit us a society so that we, as taxpayers or employers want to support them. We have inheritance laws to allow people to pass on their property to those they care about. We don’t need laws to give tax breaks to people where there is no benefit to taxpayers for doing so.

Glad to meet a level headed opponent. Let’s play devil’s advocate. If marriages that don’t result in procreation are not good for society and hence should not be incentivized (my made-up word) by the government, then should we also stop letting impotent couples and couples who don’t plan on procreating get married too? You’ve left out too many factors in deciding what’s best for the society. Pro-creation in itself is not good for society if you’re producing idiots, criminals, or others who rely on the government help to live their lives. Perhaps, marriages should be restricted only to smart people because arguably they have a better chance of raising an offspring who will contribute in net to the society. You can argue that couples who adopt (rather than pro-create) are better for society because they provide a great home for a kid who’s already born instead of bringing another to this overpopulated and unsustainable world. I could go on but hope this is enough to prove my point. :)

Really? With the divorce rate as it is, I don’t see how marriage necessarily benefits society… nor procreation (there are already more than 6 billion people on the planet and not enough resources to go around). I’d say that same-sex marriages, or civil unions, benefit society greatly because such unions do not produce offspring, yet LGBT people become loving parents to unwanted children. I call that a double plus.

I’ll leave it up to the supporters of civil unions to determine what to do, but I strongly recommend that they keep it out of the hands of politicians and move to achieve a change on a public ballot.

In all honesty, based on my faith I don’t believe in same sex unions/marriages or what ever you might call such a relationship. However, that belief only applies to my activities in life, not the activities of my neighbors or any else. I bear no malice toward people involved in such a relationship and in fact have long time friends who are living in such relationships. I don’t believe that I nor anyone else in my faith have the right to dictate how other people should live. I accept my gay friends for who they are in character, not their sex lives.

I would sign a petition to have the question put to a general election as I believe that is the only way public support would actually be measured. The Democrats had full control of the government for a couple of years and never brought it up let alone fight for it as they feared electoral fallout if they pushed it through and the majority of voters disagreed.

When it was brought before the state legislatures and (Democrat) Governor, games where played by both sides in the timing and procedures used. Even though there appeared to be sufficient support among the Republicans to pass the bill in a full floor vote, procedural games where employed by both parties to either speed it up or slow it down generating animosity on both sides and the result was a handful of politicians exercising their power to kill it. Waiting for politicians to quit playing games will result in the effort probably living in hope and once again dying in despair.

Take it directly to the people and make your case in forceful but respectful terms.

I do not agree with gay marriage. I want to see these “so called polls”. i do not trust the Denver Post’s information because of it’s left-liberal stance. So where is the ACTUAL data regarding the polls?

This is suspiciously similar to a national CNN pole reported on by Rich Maloof at MSN which found, amazingly, that the majority of Americans now have a friend or relative who is gay, and are now newly in favor of gayness! I hope Colorado voters are smart enough to see it for what it really is: Propoganda by the masters of propoganda, the left. Its a ploy to make it appear, in almost subliminal fashion, that the tide has turned, and further resistance to the coming gay tide is futile. The pole says the fights over! so give up and roll over oposition! The article also seems to hint that marriage, not civil unions is the goal, but we knew that didnt we?

There is an upcoming ballot issue in Maryland concerning reversing the current laws banning same sex marriage. It might be informative for people to watch this race as once again polling indicates that the electorate is favoring repealing the ban.

Must have included all Coloradoans rather than simply likely voters, BIG difference. I think that were Civil Unions on the ballot, they’d pass by about 58%. Gay marriage would probably be a toss-up that would come down to voter turnout and voter enthusiasm. (For the sake of disclosing my biases, I’d support civil unions but the word “marriage” is viewed as religious by many so I’d oppose that.).I’m also critical of the way it appears they worded the question. It seems much more logical to have asked about support for civil unions and gay marriage separately. Also Colorado already has “legal recognition” of gay couples in the form of domestic partnerships. Some might simply support the status quo on having less legal benefits but still some basic protections.Also, there’s some sort of Bradley effect with gay rights issues. You guys have complained about how inaccurate polling in California or North Carolina shouldn’t be used to judge Colorado, well then let’s look at Colorado. Polls showed Amendment 2 going down easily but that mess of a ballot measure ended up passing somehow.

The federal government is going to have to step up to the post and take control of the torrent of legislated bigotry on the state and federal levels. The bigotry includes state constitution alteration to restrict marriage to straights. The abrogation of LGBT rights would be killed if lawmakers would respect the clear separation of church and state. Without the separation of church and state, the bible-belts state could enact laws to execute all non-Southern Baptists within 30 days of the days of the laws signing. That would be extreme, but a mile is made up of many inches.

I think that rather then the feds attempting to dictate a resolution one way or another, the issue should be left up to individual states. Many states have slowly turned around in their initial opposition to same sex relationships.

The 10th Amendment does have some use even though it is usually ignored in the pandering political class seeking to impose their will over everyone. As it stands now the yea or nay of such national legislation would probably be contingent on the political party in power and the resolve of that party to take a stand.

Who is this unnamed, ”
Republican pollster”, who supposedly said,’
Keating Research’s numbers can be considered solid?’ Come on Denver Post get real. Don’t quote someone without naming them. Are you that desperate to prove that Colorado loves and approves of marriage for the homosexuals? Unbelievable. Put it to a vote , and then sit back and be shocked like the libs were in Wisconsin.

Likely to happen but not until after the IRS finally goes after the Republican political action committees masking themselves as churches. Amendment 2 and Proposition 8 in California have taught us much about the unbridled power of religious homophobia funded at taxpayer expense.

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.